Al Gore is wrong on global warming

Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is...what?

0.038 percent...we're doomed!

0.0360% up to an altitude of 25 km.

But, it has increased by 30% in the last 300 years.

Originally posted by Saurus
0.0360% up to an altitude of 25 km.

But, it has increased by 30% in the last 300 years.

Impressive knowlege. I didn't realize accurate CO2 measurements were being taken at 25km altitude 300 years ago. How did they manage that?

They weren't.

That is the start of the stratoshphere, in which there is no carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is limited to the troposphere up to about 25 km.

As it was 300 years ago...

[edit on 17-10-2007 by Saurus]

reply to post by traderonwallst




uhm, ok.. ill try to explain this very easy ... That was millions of years ago... When the tectonic plates where aligned different.. But hey .. you knew that right ?

Originally posted by bicnarok
The gas caused by animal farts (methane gas) is far more damaging than what we emit through cars, factory's etc.

FACT

Are you claiming that our cars emit Methane gas? .. Or are you reffering to Carbon dioxide ?

reply to post by tep200377


He doesn't understand plate tectonics that well, as evidenced by his thought on sea-floor basalt raising sea levels... You should explain it more clearly. Also include in your explanation the effects Panthalassa has on the climate of the super-continent Pangaea during the Permian carboniferous era, which incidentally was when the plants that formed the fossil fuels we use today were alive.

reply to post by Beachcoma


I understand both smart ass. I am using logic only on this thread. The biggest point of this thread in my opinion is logic out weighs "your so-called science" on this one. Haven't you people go that yet? Yeah I said you people. I'll take it for that, I know. Its early here and I just got to work.

I know all about Pangea, but logic again dictates....THINGS CHANGE!!!!! Weren't we all just one big happy continent at one point? THINGS CHANGE!!!!

The more things change, the more we don't understand. So to say that over the past 50 years we have been able to understand the 4.5 billion years of earths histroy and what WE are now doing wrong is just totally assinine.

Why are you so fast to throw out the underwater volcano theory as "contributing" to ocean temperatures rising, but you firmly believe that driving cars definitley "causes" global warming?

reply to post by traderonwallst


Cool down. You seem to think every one is against you. Science can only function when there is logic. But it also requires objectivity, it requires you look at the subject dispassionately so that you don't let emotions cloud your judgement. You are getting all worked up. This doesn't help you better understand the situation. Your arguments so far seem more of a product of feeling rather than facts.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Why are you so fast to throw out the underwater volcano theory as "contributing" to ocean temperatures rising, but you firmly believe that driving cars definitley "causes" global warming?

I suspected you didn't read my earlier response on page 2. I asked you to give a comment about it on page 7 when you said you're interested in the science part of the argument. Must have missed it? Or are you simply arguing for the sake of it?

Never mind. Now that I've gotten your attention, let me repost the whole thing here in it's entirety.

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Of course, those dumb oceanorgraphers forgot about the volcanoes.

No, they didn't. But I think climatologists haven't factored their findings as well as those of geologists into the equation. I've a feeling undersea volcanoes may play a crucial role in global warming, but lack of funding is probably the main reason why not enough scientists are following up on that possibility.

To follow traderonwallst's line of thinking before the basalt-seawater displacement bit, the volcanoes along with undersea faults and megaplumes warm the waters around it, which in turn causes the ocean temperatures to rise. Here's a balanced article on this possibility in regards to the El Nino phenomenon:

Hot Vents in the Sea Floor May Drive El Nino

There's also the fact that the last Ice Age was preceded by the oceans warming up first, possibly leading to the release of gas hydrates from their ocean floor deep freeze. All this leads me to believe that the whole global warming mechanism is far more complex than portrayed in the media, a fact that both supporters and detractors of anthropomorphic global warming would do well to remember. After all, we're talking about climate and weather, something we all know is fickle. Besides, if we are to remain objective, we must consider all the reasonable possibilities.

With that said, it is my opinion that whoever thinks this is a free pass to continue leading an environmentally unsustainable lifestyle is most definitely deluding themselves. Carbon dioxide still is a contributor to GW, and a greenhouse gas. If we don't do something to slow down the effects now, we may reach the point of no return when the siberian permafrost starts melting and releasing even more greenhouse gases.

Do we really want to reach that point?

That was my entire argument earlier. It still is. Now do you understand my position? It follows logic as well, wouldn't you agree? What's your comment on that?

Originally posted by Atlantix
I read a decent article showing proof that the entire solar system is heating up, for unknown reasons.

In all cases, earth is definitively not warming up because of human action. Earth is warming up for the same reason the entire solar system is warming up.

How can you say the reasons are unknown - and then state quite emphatically that it's definitely not because of human actions!! Ha ha what rubbish.

Anyway, I was studying the basics of global warming back in 95, and I worked on biogeochemical projects at uni which involved CO2 release from wetlands either drying out or being submerged. Chris Freeman is the guy involved, and I very much doubt he is one of these scientists motivated by money etc. that people here (non-scientists I'll wager) seem to be convinced of. For 13 years I've followed both sides of the research, run the BBC climate change model on my PC, read the work of the denier guy at Boulder University (just down the road from me) etc etc. - so before any of this was a concern to anyone besides those inside the scientific community.

I am a very objective person, and for me, the proper science all leads me to believe that Man IS contributing to the warming of the planet. Whether it is part of a natural cycle or not, the change is happening much faster than geological change can account for. Our behavior is affecting all kinds of cycles which are all positively feeding back into one another - leading to further warming (like the research I took part in and quote above).

I have been surprised, and have found it very amusing to see so many "conspiracy nuts" all throwing around vague theories about this and that. Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory (which is why I'm here), but it must be awful to lead a life so full of suspicion and conjecture! I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Did you know that the Antartic region once housed palm trees and beaches???

Really? A link to that please! There isn't enough solar radiation at those latitudes to sustain tropical vegetation - even if global temperatures were higher (plants need enough light to grow - not heat). Just a thought, were the beaches made of sand or coral?

Originally posted by bicnarok
The gas caused by animal farts (methane gas) is far more damaging than what we emit through cars, factory's etc.

FACT

Yes, methane is about four times more effective than CO2 at absorbing wavelengths of IR I believe (may be incorrect). But that in no way means that our CO2 release is not having an effect - and the amount of CO2 released by humans outweighs the impact of natural methane release quite significantly. So You're either right (comparing the direct properties of CO2 and CH4), or you're wrong (comparing contributions to possible climate change). Which?

Water vapor is also cited by many skeptical websites as the main culprit (not the other gases). Well duh, without it we'd be an ice planet. More greenhouse gasses lead to warmer temperatures, which leads to increased evaporation, which leads to increased watervapor held in the warmer air. Which leads to.... more global warming! Another nice positive feedback loop .

[edit on 17-10-2007 by G-Man.usa]

I'm not sure if the actually numbers have been talked about but please look at the following sites.

EPA Carbon Dioxide Numbers

Natural Gas

Your Car puts out roughly 20lbs of CO2 per gallon

Natural Gas drops about 116,000 lbs of CO2 per billion CFT (cubic foot)

If i did my math right, 100 cft of natural gas is 100,000 BTUs or 1Therm as the EPA puts it...so that would be 116,000 lbs per 10 million CFT of natural burned. Thats not a lot of fuel and thats just natural gas. The second site puts some interesting numbers against not just natural gas but coal and oil, and Natural Gas is a fossil fuel regardless of anyones idea it is an Alternative.

Alternative only meaning that it does produce less then coal an oil.

Simply stating man isn't the cause is slightly redundant but we are contributing on a major global scale. its up there where does it all go? I know it ain't going very far because when the wind stops in the city its brown central.

How can anyone think by adding something to anything isn't going to effect it in anyway? Not to mention who do we trust more to give us accurate numbers about these levels? I don't trust them but these are the so called "official source" I know I'm being lied to on a constant basis...but its Faith i guess. Man is the cause of all its Problems.....if not then who the hell is? Ailens? god? Santa clause? The threat may not be here today but its coming.

Open your eyes to a problem and fix it rather then debating the persons responsible.

reply to post by G-Man.usa


You work in this arena, at university level and did not know that they have found evidence of palm trees and beaches in the Antarctic regions? This almost calls into question your level of experience in this matter that you claim to have.

Any way, here is a link for ya.

www.100megsfree4.com...

reply to post by Beachcoma


Glad you agree that issues are too complex to actually come to and definitive agreement one way or the other. Yes the earth is warming.....No scientists can not prove we are the cause of it.

I have to get back to work. Maybe an answer later tonight for ya.

Why are people so naive about what all of the pollutants that we humans release into the evironment are doing to the planet?

I liken all of this to that period in our history when people steadfastly believed that the Earth was flat and that all of the planets and the sun revolved around the Earth.

I'm sure it all comes down to people doing comfortable with their lifestyles the way they are. We don't want to change, unless it makes our lives easier. We don't want to recycle because it takes time and effort, we don't want to drive our cars less because it's inconvenient for our busy schedules. So instead, we deny or ignore the fact that we're killing the planet,, because it's too much of a hassle to take a few small steps to help reduce or eliminate the problem.

Originally posted by traderonwallst

You work in this arena, at university level and did not know that they have found evidence of palm trees and beaches in the Antarctic regions? This almost calls into question your level of experience in this matter that you claim to have.

Any way, here is a link for ya.

www.100megsfree4.com...

Erm, reading every little bit of scientific research produced isn't my forte, but I guess neither is it yours (and probably to a much lesser extent). Anyway, I read the article, it seems they did find palm-like (i.e. not actually palm) trees, flies and beetles. I'm sorry to make you seem a little slow, but you seem to be confusing "beaches" (sandy things on shorelines) with "beech forests" - which are forests of beech trees. Beech forests are mentioned in your article.

It's true that in the Eocene the climate was much warmer than it is today, but forest were temperate - not tropical. Warmer temperature obviously allowed them to live in arctic/antarctic latitudes, but with a very short growing season due to the lack of solar radiation. This all came to an end as ocean currents cooled and the Earth resumed a more elliptical orbit.

Anyway, care to comment on the other stuff I mention in my post rather than my little post script?

I may be going out on a limb here, but this whole discussion smacks of partisan BS. If Gingrich had written this theory, imagine the flip side of the coin.

I've seen this rhetoric before - Al Gore / Jimmy Carter / Democrat here - comes up with a theory/wins a prize/etc, and somehow, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc, find the one guy that disagrees with the idea that a clean environment / world peace are good, and the meme that it must be bad is born.

Jesus, imagine if Gingrich had written the paper. The Democrats would be saying he's not credible because he divorced his dying wife in the hospital.

To hell with true objectivity. Let's bicker while the world burns.

Originally posted by Argossol
I may be going out on a limb here, but this whole discussion smacks of partisan BS.

...

To hell with true objectivity. Let's bicker while the world burns.

Quite true. Personally, I don't see how concern over the global climate and the wellbeing of future generations is a partisan issue, but people sure as hell are trying to turn it into one.

But here's what really gets me: why is conservation and cutting down on pollution and fuel consumption a bad thing? So what if Al Gore and co. turn out to be wrong. Does anyone think that the world's supply of fossil fuels is limitless? Eventually we are going to have to be weened off our oil addiction. We might as well start now when there is a lot of evidence that humans are in fact having a very real and negative impact on the global climate. At the very worst, there is no immediate threat but the lives of millions will be enriched through cleaner air and renewable sources of energy. At best, we will stave off utter catastrophe.

Throughout history those in power have used FEAR to control the masses.
Usually this takes the form of religion. Fear of hell, fear of coming back as a snail, whatever. This is just more of the same. Fear of terrorism very conveniently used to whittle away our rights with the Patriot Act. It used to be fear of communism. what did they use in Germany? Fear of the Jews, fear of communists.

Fear of global warming is just the latest one. Guess what YOU need to do to save the planet? BUY stuff, that's right. Buy CARBON CREDITS from the SUPER-CONSUMER Al Gore himself, while he is excused for his $30,000 electric bill and ride around in jets that gobble the fuel and spew the carbon. What a crock of shiznit. The freakin' Nobel Peace prize, not for science, (not even special effects for the inconvenient lie) but really it's for the "carbon credit" !
What a stroke of genius, to invent such a perfect mechanism for SCREWING US.

I remember when Stimpy (from Ren & Stimpy) won the "nobel peace prize" in a dream of his, that's about what it means now. They should award the thing to Stimpy posthumously since this huckster got it.

Originally posted by me262

Fear of global warming is just the latest one. Guess what YOU need to do to save the planet? BUY stuff, that's right. Buy CARBON CREDITS from the SUPER-CONSUMER Al Gore himself, while he is excused for his $30,000 electric bill and ride around in jets that gobble the fuel and spew the carbon. What a crock of shiznit. The freakin' Nobel Peace prize, not for science, (not even special effects for the inconvenient lie) but really it's for the "carbon credit" !
What a stroke of genius, to invent such a perfect mechanism for SCREWING US.

The idea of global warming has been around for at least 25 years, and the growing body of scientific knowledge and advancing technology has given credence to those original ideas. The idea of carbon credits has been bandied about since the early 90s. Hmmm, and idea posed by scientist as an economic mechanism for promoting sustainable use of fossil fuels and you just write it off as some new government FEAR initiative? How uneducated are you?

Al Gore has nothing to do with these things except bring them to more people's attention. It's pretty funny that he elicits that kind of reaction from some one

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by neformore

 

Yep. And it's sad that any potential for a good discussion turns into and Al Gore bashing fest, where all the valid points get drowned in stupid partisan debates.

It's all about war. War is good.

-Euclid